Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday June 27, 2009 @01:30PM
from the therefore-not-a-monomaniac dept.

twitter writes "There's been a lot of fuss about mono lately. After SCO and MS suing over FAT patents, you would think avoiding anything MS would be a matter of common sense. RMS now steps into the fray to warn against a serious mistake: 'Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use. .... This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. ... [writing and using applications in mono] is taking a gratuitous risk.'"Update: 06/27 20:22 GMT by T: Read on below for one Mono-eschewing attempt at getting the (excellent) Tomboy's functionality, via a similar program called Gnote. Update: 06/27 21:07 GMT by T: On the other side of the coin, reader im_thatoneguy writes "Jo Shields, a Mono Developer, has published an article on 'Why Mono Doesn't Suck,' why it is not a threat to FOSS, why it is desirable to developers and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default."

LastGuyonEarth writes "Gnote was started on April 2009 by Gnome developer Hubert Figuiere, known also for his work on Abiword. The goal of Gnote is to provide a Free Software implementation of Tomboy that doesn't rely on Mono. The ultimate goal is to replace Tomboy in an effort to make Gnome and GNU/Linux distributions non-dependant on Novell's implementation of Microsoft's .NET platform. For our testing purposes, I installed Gnote 0.5.1 on Ubuntu Jaunty through a personal PPA, but I would love to see it officially packaged in the near future."

It's absurd that Stallman has to actually issue this warning considering Microsoft's history of behavior not only with competition but with their business associates as well. Anyone who has been both alive and conscious these past twenty-five years knows forming any sort of relationship with Microsoft, either directly or indirectly, customer or partner, is just asking for a raping.

I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies. Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience! This includes mac.

Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot. Mono does nothing more and proliferate the.NET platform, often at the expense of Java. The thing that Microsoft likes so much about.NET is that while mono and Portable.NET provide a way to make true cross platform apps, there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the core, which makes it very easy to make a.NET app that is not portable. In the late 90s Java was the same way thanks to Microsoft's JVM with builtin COM support, and various other Microsoft technologies. The Java of today however is designed in such a way that it is difficult to make a Java app that is not cross platform, which is why that hate it so much.
Mono makes.NET exactly what Microsoft wants it to be, technically open yet easily locked to thier platform.

Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.

Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.

Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software. Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place? Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software? Wasn't he potentially violating patents? Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft? Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)? Mono is 2 generations behind Microsoft, yet has a pretty good stable offering and makes a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU...this isn't something Stallman should be against, IMHO.

Another reason to avoid Mono is that IMHO it doesn't play to Linux's strengths.

C# is almost kinda almost neat on Windows because it interacts nicely with windows's objects. On Unix/Linux where things more often communicate through pipes, streams, files, etc, it seems to me Python's a better tool for most jobs.

And another gripe with C# and.java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job. They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc. I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.

Interesting, compared to this [fsfe.org] which has been his comment earlier. Nice to see RMS give the Mono haters more fuel to their flame wars, so that developers can get tangled up in endless discussions about this in stead of actually hacking away. Again, this is one of the reasons GNU/Linux is not gaining more than it does. All MS needs to do in order to keep hackers busy not making great software (and cloning already great C# apps instead), is issue some kind of new vague statement on the nature of.NET. Then, we all lose. Like we've been doing since day 1. Nice. Thanks. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

That is a very shallow analysis. If I recall correctly Microsoft successfully sued TomTom for violating FAT patents in the Linux kernel on their devices. Furthermore, yes, if Microsoft took a litigious stance on.Net, then Mono would just get rid of the offending code. Thereby, breaking every single program written that depends on that feature. And M$ (yes M$) could do that over and over again, effectively killing the ecosystem on anything besides Linux. Stallman is 100% correct in his opinion here. Mono is good to run shit written in.Net. But don't rely on it as a platform in a free ecosystem. It is unadvisable in the long run.

- illegally burying Lotus 123, and replacing it with an inferior product- illegally killing stacker, and replacing it with the inferior doublespace- buying winternals, and burying one of the most promising security tools for XP I'd ever seen- illegally forcing their browser onto the market, creating some of the biggest security headaches IT admins have ever seen- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office

I'm a big user of Microsoft software, but I'm under no illusions as to their business practices, motivations, or horrendous track record when it comes to security and interoperability.

Read the OP. The words are his; I adapted them to point out his dubious stance of criticizing Stallman for calling mono evil and pushing an agenda, while he himself calls the GPL evil and even says that more software should be in the public domain.

I'm not "for the GPL" or "against the GPL"; if I ever release source code it will probably be GPL'd (or BSD'd if I deem more appropriate), but I'm not denying anybody the choice. The OP on the other hand seems to think that developers shouldn't have the right to choose the license for the code they write (or I got him wrong).

Is Stallman also saying Open Office should be discontinued because it can read a Word document? The.doc standard is closed, heavily patented, rigidly controlled, and arbitrarily changed... yet I think we all agree an office suite that wants to be relevant better be able to save files in that format. So sure, use.odf as your default... but if you can't convert to.doc, you pretty much can't use it in the business world.

What about Wine? That implements the entire freaking Win32 API. If Mono, which implements a single language and a single programming technology for using multiple languages (.net) scares him, Wine must have him jumping at shadows.

Hell, even drivers could fall into this category. If you allow an MS mouse to function in Linux, are you afraid of patent suits there too? I certainly hope not, as mice are something you very much expect to work with zero effort.

C# may have been developed by a big bloated corporation that many consider evil (or at least unethical), but so was C! (AT&T - anyone boycotting C/C++ over warrantless wiretapping? Didn't think so.) Does anyone coding in C or C++ (or making a compiler or IDE for it) seriously fear a patent lawsuit from AT&T?

.net was clearly built as a Windows technology, but that's simply because MS made it. MS pretty much CAN'T claim patents on it, because.net itself implements so many languages that MS had nothing to do with developing, that I think it's safe to say any.net-based patent suit would die in seconds.

I'm no fan of MS, but I really don't see a problem with Mono unless you have Stallmanian paranoia.

Add to that the fact the M$ published the spec under a recognized standards body and that was the point at which the zealot's heads began to swell until the point of explosion.

That "publishing under a recognized standards body" didn't stop RAMBUS from trying to pull a fast one. It all depends how Microsoft presented the specification that determines what they can and cannot do in court to cripple use of Mono. Most of the recognized standards bodies have required that the contributor(s) grant licenses to use the ideas described by the standard. The licenses do not have to be royalty-free, just "reasonable" and uniform. Most licenses have a fixed payment per use, which means that "free" is not an option.

Nothing. This is Stallman FUD. This issue has been beaten to death. Mono works with an ECMA spec. That's it.

Let''s do the rational thing: ignore Stallman. He's going the way of the dodo. More and more projects are open source and please-use-this-in-your-business-without-restrictions and he hates that world. He'd like everyone to catch his virus, but it's not happening.

So, can you remember the leaked documents named ''Halloween'' something?

Remember the weak point of Linux as reported? Easy to divide politically. Icaza and gang really serves this purpose well.

I wonder if there will be one heroic developer with time to waste in hand will convert Tom Tom whatever that trojan is to GTK (remember GTK Icaza?) and Qt. In fact, while wasting time, I would use GNUStep and release same code on Windows, OS X and Linux. That would show what multi platform and open means to people spending time at Redmond while Open Suse releases a major version.

Don't be absurd. Just because software patents don't apply in a given country doesn't mean they can't cripple Linux development in that country. Do you really think forking Linux and having all the countries that currently enforce software patents and all the companies that do business in that country developing one fork and the rest developing a different fork would not be a crippling blow to Linux? I don't care where you live, if all the Linux developers in the US are stopped from using the Linux after it started to include Mono and have to go back and rewrite all the subsequent application built upon it in 5 years time, that will hurt all Linux users around the world and significantly slow progress.

You also failed to address my point about intentionally incompatible versions of standards. Since you're posting AC you're probably a troll. Get an account or make less trollish posts if you want further replies from me.

Since I seem to have been unjustly voted overrated I'll back up my assertion with a quote from CmdrTaco himself:

Ravn: Slashdot is well known for its bias (if you'll forgive the term) towards Open Source Software. Slashcode itself is Open Source. Why is this? What was involved with the decision to make Slashcode OSS? Why do you think it is important? What, in your opinion, makes Open Source Software so great?

CmdrTaco: I'm a very biased person. And I bring many of my biases with me to Slashdot. No apologies are necessary;) Slashcode is open source because my readers clammored for it in the late 90's. Today thousands of websites use the code. That's very cool. Unfortunately almost none of them contribute anything back, so while it was great for them, it continues to be a burden for us. Not every open source project is the kernel;)

Ok, perhaps that quote doesn't perfectly illustrate a pro linux and anti microsoft bias. If you need anymore comfirmation though I suggest you look no farther than slashdot's "borg Gates" image they use for any microsoft related story. For better or worse, slashdot does have a bias and anyone thinking otherwise is quite foolish.

MS or M$ - Who cares? If people use M$ you can see their bias right away, which may be a good thing to help you evaluate their position. Should a website thriving on user comments start implementing strict spelling rules? MS also stands for a disease, which I find kind of ironic. So does mono.

but you actually want me to take advice on technology from this fossil?

its hard to be an authority on a subject matter you do not fully and freely partake of, don't you think?

"Just because the guy doesn't take the well-worn path he's out of touch?"

considering that the concept of taking "the well worn path" and the concept of being "out of touch" are pretty much antonyms, then yes

as for being an "intellectual conformist": conforming the validity of opinions to those who actually attempt to engage in the subject matter... that's not intellectual conformity, that's topical conformity

i mean i have a great opinion for you on the proper engine to use in race cars. but i don't actually race cars. pffffffft

Until now Debian has been clearly in the pure camp. Debian, moe RMS Pure than RMS over the GNU FDL. Debian, endless wanking over whether firmware blobs have to get yanked for two major releases. And so on. Now suddenly they are taking the Novell "Mono is just another managed code environment licensed under the GPL, nothing to fear here" position. when everyone else DOES see something to fear even if they ship Mono/Tomboy. Fedora is planning on tossing Mono out of the standard install and RH has never shipped it in RHEL because their lawyers are uneasy.

In the end, if the system isn't fairly Pure it isn't ultimately going to be useful. Patents exist, FUD attacks work.

Basically the only sensible way to treat C# is like Win32. It is OK to import Windows applications using Mono or Wine but basing core parts of the Free World on such apps is unwise. If for no other reason than basing our application stack on APIs controlled by people who want to destroy us is about as wise as the Western world basing our economy on oil imported from the Middle East. An argument can be made that we have little choice regarding oil but we most certainly do regarding Mono as we didn't creep into a dependency over decades we are being asked to walk into this trap with our eyes wide open.

i'm sorry, if the guy doesn't partake of contemporary technological reality, he's just a bizarre fossil, and his opinion loses validity

i'm sure the man is a genius, but if he consciously curtails his involvement in how the rest world interacts with the web and adapts some alien SMTP modus operandi, i'm not going to take his opinion on web-related technologies seriously. you really think there's no basis for me doing that?

now give me my troll mod for not kowtowing to the apparent sainthood of RMS in your eyes

Yes, Unix and C were developed by an eviler company than Microsoft... About 40 years ago. Any patents filed on the core of C or Unix have long since expired.

When the GNU project started there were virtually no software patents, and what existed were effectively non-enforceable. It wasn't until 1981 that anyone really believed a software patent could be enforced, and not until the creation of the federal circuit (which handed the patent attorneys complete control of the courts for patents) in 1982 did you have any chance of enforcing one.

The GNU project started at a unique moment in history when technology was cheap enough to make it possible but before the patenting of software could make it impossible.

Were it not for work sparked by the GNU project unix systems would likely have died out over a decade ago, and certainly would have missed all the user friendly enhancements built by the linux distributions in the intervening time. There would also be a lot less open development generating an undeniable wall of prior art, catching up using 20 year old technology would probably not be possible.

Because of the patent situation it seems pretty unlikely that the GNU project could be started today.

> GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology...

A couple of important differences.

1. The patents have long since expired on the core ideas in UNIX. we are rapidly approaching the point where Linux has existed longer than a US patent is allowed to exist and BSD embodies almost all of the user visible APIs and goes back even longer.

2. C is an ANSI Standard that again is older than any patent could threaten from. C++ is more recent but was developed by real standards bodies vs ECMA, thus any IP issues would be out in the open.

3. C#, the CLR and the rest of Mono/.Net/etc are the sole creation of Microsoft Corp. Any changes can only originate from them, the tech is new enough to have patents pretty much anywhere and by their sole control of the language the can introduce whatever they want and we get to chase their tail lights because they won't have to disclose any of the new bits until they ship production code.

So yes, had the GNU Project been operating in the toxic software patent environment we now have it is doubtful they would have been able to release GCC when they did, instead being forced to wait out the patents, but history is what it is.

Using a web browser is not a prerequisite for being an authority on programming, let alone an authority on IP policy implications. What specific information is he missing out on by not using a web browser that gives you a reason to question his knowledge? Your little analogy about engines is laughably pathetic, unless you really mean to question the software experience of the guy who wrote emacs...

In my experience, the real experts frequently don't have time or interest in mucking around with the latest flavor of the month technology because they're too busy thinking about real issues.

He does not personally partake of them because he doesn't have the time. He still participates in discussions about the technology, and was a visionary on the subject of standards (which greatly affect the web, in case you haven't noticed) probably since you were in diapers.

It's like saying Adobe can lash out a patent against all.pdf documents which is impossible since Adobe passed on the PDF as an open specification. Eventhough Adobe invented it, they have no legal control over it anymore.

Have you ever looked into why the Microsoft Office 2007 RTM had its PDF writer as an add-on rather than integrated into Word like it was in the Office 2007 betas?

"Microsoft's general counsel told the WSJ that Adobe has threatened legal action unless Microsoft agrees to charge for the PDF support patch, a step it refuses to take."

While Adobe can't lash out against PDF documents, it can against software that creates PDF documents!

Incidentally, the actual MS Office add-on is still free, but the above quote was from 2006.

There are plenty of patent issues, and you cannot write desktop apps without using APIs outside the.NET ECMA specs.

C# is important to the discussion because Tomboy, the application Debian decided it must have, is written in C#.

GNU does not have to provide any alternative to.NET. Java is free software and Sun has released all necessary patents..NET is a copycat of Java. It is better than Java at some things, worse at others, but both are evolving. Java is not encumbered, so why the hell should free software use patent encumbered.NET?

Stallman does not see free software implementations of.NET as a problem since they provide interoperability with non-free software written for other platforms. He just claims free software should not be constrained by such limitations, and I for one agree with him.

I suggest you look no farther than slashdot's "borg Gates" image they use for any microsoft related story. For better or worse, slashdot does have a bias and anyone thinking otherwise is quite foolish.

Bias I can live with.

But the Borg icon and the stained glass Window are simply flamebait from the nineties - and by now looking rather gray around the temples.

If Star Trek can reboot the franchise to restore some of it's integrity, perhaps it's time for Slashot to do the same.

If you do not like the mean bad old boss or I.T. department mendling on the systems you use at work then buy your own computer.

Sorry RMS but work is not freedom. Its just a paycheck as you no longer own your time in exchange for money to live.

If you are in charge of a system where other people at work need access to it and you are *paid* to keep it up then what are you supposed to do? Restrictions at work make sense as they are not being paid to play with their computers but to work.

I think you can tell RMS is out of touch with reality. Administrators need complete control in order to lower TCO and keep productivity. I want the file server to just work in the office where is my power to enforce this?

No Shit. And the guy just gets fricking weirder and weirder as the years roll on. By now I'm sure everyone has seen him eating toe cheese [youtube.com] on stage, and THIS is the guy you want to listen to on the direction of Linux? Really?

If there has to be a guy at the head, like Bill or Jobs, then let it be Linus. He always seems to have a smart answer and a good head on his shoulders. With RMS, hell MSFT couldn't ask for a better spokesman. If I worked marketing in MSFT I would just make a clip showing Gates or Ballmer talking about some complex PC interaction and compare it to RMS eating toe cheese on stage and say "Which guy do YOU want directing where the OS you are using is headed?". Lets be honest here, the guy is a nut.

And I agree with the other poster that taking advice on an OS who biggest selling point is how well it works with the web from a guy that doesn't surf is just nuts. It would be like Apple taking direction from John McCain. But what do we expect from Twitter, "King of the sockpuppets"? I'm sure anybody that dares to say something bad about RMS will be modded down by his sockpuppet legions.

Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot.

Kind of like suing TomTom was a major shot in the foot? MS kept their patents, got their licensing fee from TomTom, and no one cares. What would really happen if popular applications were written for the Common Language Runtime (say, Firefox or OpenOffice) is that as soon as Microsoft sued Linux distributions who shipped Mono, users would just switch to Windows to run their applications. If there's anything to learn from the MS/Linux battle, it's that applications matter far more than operating systems.

Wrong. It's was childish of him to undermine his own point with that "M$" bullshit. You lose.

Too bad I stated that using 'M$' is childish.

Just as it was childish of me to mod your post down and bookmark your user page for the next batch of mod points.

Knock yourself out. You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. Just remember, each time you do it, that it demonstrates your insecurity and is a reminder of the impotence of your passive aggresive existence.

As for myself, it won't bother me in the slightest. Unlike a lot of folks here (judging from the 'don't mod me down just because you disagree' sigs), I'm perfectly fine with the fact that idiots are granted mod points. It's kind of sad that you'd rather waste them than use them to make things better for the rest of us, but whatever, they're your points.

No need to reply, as I have no interest, nor feel any compulsion, to carry on a tiresome argument with you.

Microsoft offers a bundle of products and services which have become the de facto global standard for office work.

That solves many problems for your employer.

He can open an office anywhere south of the Arctic Circle - an office of any size - with perfect confidence that an MS Office solution will scale to his needs and that local recruitment and training will present no particular difficulty.

It is rather typical of the geek to focus on something like the "openness" of a file format - and miss the significance of The Ribbon.

The Ribbon speaks directly to the productivity of the office worker - and nothing lies closer to the heart and wallet of the office manager.

No, you’re talking about cynicism, which you’re trying to sell as pragmatism.
If you do not understand the motivations behind free software you’re more than welcome to keep using closed software, but you cannot criticize the free software community for trying to survive.
Microsoft has already applied for patents on the.NET framework, and when they will start suing all the companies who distribute free software based on it - just like they have already done with tomtom - all free software based on.NET will be *gone*.
So avoiding.NET from a free software point of view is not “religion” - it is basic, concrete, rational strategy. There are plenty of alternatives to.NET available to free software developers.

Any competent and well-informed programmer knows that the openness of C#/.NET is a total sham. Sure the core is open, but there's so many Windows-only extensions that it's virtually impossible to make cross-platform apps. Plus the fact that the Mono implementation is always waay behind Microsoft's.

But MS has been very clever. They know that it's only technical people who can see this; the rest will just get the subliminal message that ".NET is now also cross-platform, just as Java".

This is the real damage of Mono. Its existence provides the right excuse for PHB and clueless tech decision-makers to sway the decision towards.NET instead
of Java, because, "hey, Microsoft is also cross-platform now".

It pisses off Microsofties, who, being narcissistic freaks, can't stand being reminded that millions of intelligent people hate them, their software and their company with a passion.

I think it has more to do with wanting to see article descriptions that make an attempt at remaining neutral. Using "M$" is as charged and biased as saying "Linsux" or "crApple," and undermines the article post, making what would normally be a news post into an opinion editorial.

Many people want to make their own decisions, and not be told what to think of things before even investigating them. Isn't that kind of spirit how things like the OSS movement started, anyway--not being told what or how to do things, but doing them for themselves?

I notice the Linux zealots modded me troll, that's funny as hell. I have karma to last until Judgment day so have fun.

If you would have read my post I said there was a REASON that you should use MSFT, and that is because as of late they seemed more concerned with the stock price that with their core business. Just look at Vista, which was rushed out way too early with serious bugs to keep the stock price from dropping further, or Zune(doesn't "playforsure" now, huh?) which was spit out to try to give them an Apple style buzz, the X360 which was rushed out with a serious flaw(RROD) to give them a head start on PS3, etc.

Meanwhile their core markets, the ones that cut them the big fat checks for software assurance and buy desktops by the thousands have been given the finger [infoworld.com] yet again. Why? Because Steve Ballmer wants the stock to be as high as Apple Inc and have the kind of buzz that Steve Jobs has. I can just imagine what it must be like in Steve Ballmer's office "And with Win7 we'll finally be as hip and as cool as Apple! We really will! Yes we will! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!!"

So say what you want about Bill Gates but that ruthless bastard could put out a good business OS. Ever since he left the company has bounced from one idea to another like all of Redmond has ADHD. I'm sure the Linux and Apple guys are laughing their asses off because we MSFT users are getting the same treatment Apple did under the Pepsi guy.

But anyone who has followed the comings and goings of MSFT(and I have since the days of Win3.xx) can say that they have lost their focus and seem more concerned about image and stock price than in putting out a good product. So that is why I think MSFT is a perfect shortcut for Microsoft and better than that tired old M$ line. MSFT points out that they care more about stock price than product, M$ makes you sound like a 14 year old asshat or Twitter. And is there anybody here BESIDES Twitter that wants to sound like him? Besides his sockpuppets of course.

How about even using a "portable" language defined and controlled by Microsoft? Sure, if you only care about Windows, use C#. But Microsoft has a long history of jerking around standards that it controls to make them impossible for competitors to adopt.

The standardized version of the C# language is not controlled by Microsoft. It's, you know, standardized. If you're paranoid about MS pulling the rug out from under you in the future, then stick to the ECMA standard, and don't use the latest whiz-bang C# 4.0 features until and unless those become standardized too.

1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."

Since C# and CLI are ECMA standards, Microsoft is obligated to offer any such patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory licenses. That would rule out banning the use of C# on non-MS platforms. They've also gone further and said that any licensing would be royalty-free.

That said... the idea that patents covering these technologies even exist seems to be a myth. I've never seen any actual patents referenced in any of these Mono threads, only scary hype about the possibility that they might exist undetected.

2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."

The C# language, the CLI (virtual machine) and core framework are ECMA standards. Microsoft could release C# 5.0 without submitting it to ECMA and impose draconian terms, but you could keep on using the older standardized version.

Microsoft offers a bundle of products and services which have become the de facto global standard for office work.That solves many problems for your employer.

No, it doesn't. It might, if the file formats weren't changed on each version solely to fuck all of their customers.

He can open an office anywhere south of the Arctic Circle - an office of any size - with perfect confidence that an MS Office solution will scale to his needs and that local recruitment and training will present no particular difficulty.

Only if the version he's using is the same as the version used in all of the other locations. Otherwise, he gets on the upgrade treadmill, and *everybody* gets fucked.

It is rather typical of the geek to focus on something like the "openness" of a file format - and miss the significance of The Ribbon.

Au contraire, it's rather typical of the MS shill/apologist to invent scenarios that don't actually happen in an attempt to claim that MS is a good solution.

I think that the Debian folks, although they are doing a impressive job in maintaining the project, are very close to a situation where one could wonder if they don't keep double standards. But to make matters more grim I can't help wonder if they didn't bring this whole situation upon themselves.

When it comes to licenses and the slightest indication of software possibly being "non free" then Debian holds very high standards. And don't get me wrong: rightfully so. But where things started getting heavily off course (IMO naturally) is when they include broken software to make up for the loss of the original. There are many examples but the one I personally experienced was with Java. Instead of simply making the point "No, we don't include Java because its not open source" (an opinion which I still find highly questionable) they chose to include broken software and presented it in a way as Java (it "looked" and "felt" the same after all). Unfortunately, that horribly POS (personal opinion) wasn't even capable of getting people through the first chapters of the official Java tutorial [thejavatutorial.com]. A situation which I think has put many people on the wrong track with regards to Java, even to a point where they concluded that Java on Linux was broke.

And now I'm wondering if that same approach hasn't moved many Debian (or deratives) users away from Java due to the extreme hassle around it only to adopt another (seemingly) better supported platform; C# in the form of Mono. Maybe this is a little too black/white portraited but I still think it might apply to some of them. So in that aspect I can't help wonder if Debian brought this entirely upon itself.

As for Stallman and his worries; I have to agree to some extend. History has shown us multiple times that you can't trust MS with things like these. I'm even shocked to see that Debian would exclude the official Java implementation because they deemed it "not open source" (only because the source was freely available, but not under a license which people liked) but will happily include an environment which cannot be deemed entirely free (yet?). But on the other hand, if you take a closer look at MS's trademarks [microsoft.com] you will see that there isn't any friction (yet) when comparing those to what can be seen on the Mono website [mono-project.com].

Because please bear well in mind the header of that MS page: "The absence of a name or logo in this list does not constitute a waiver of any and all intellectual property rights that Microsoft Corporation or its subsidiaries have established in any of their product, feature, or service names or logos.". But one could always wonder; should MS do start throwing some weight around; what is stopping Mono from changing their: "We provide C# on other platforms" to "We provide a MS powered java-like platform on other platforms.".

All in all I think Debian is making a grave mistake, but I doubt it can result in a scenario as forewarned by Stallman.

The standardized version of the C# language is not controlled by Microsoft. It's, you know, standardized. If you're paranoid about MS pulling the rug out from under you in the future, then stick to the ECMA standard, and don't use the latest whiz-bang C# 4.0 features until and unless those become standardized too.

Spoken like a developer. And if I'm a user of some software? Everything is nice and crossplatform, but the primary platform is Windows. They go C# 4.0 and either Linux does too or it gets left in the cold. I get left in the cold. The whole concept is just as stupid as if Linux were to give up on OpenGL and try chasing DirectX instead, or abandon ODF and try chasing OOXML. It's the good old fashioned embrace, extend, extinguish again except Microsoft got us adopting their standards instead of the other way around. That they've managed to fool part of the community only means the community is being naive.

The man basically made a lot of the internet and the modern computing experience possible. His foundation is responsible for some of the most vital, widely used, and essential software in use today.

And yet whenever he opens his mouth, cue the ad hominem attacks. They come hard and fast. Ignore what he said. Just question his character - change the subject, pick apart some wacky thing from his life. That should settle the matter.

Do you only converse with people who are absolutely normal, totally conventional, and who never make any mistakes in anything they have ever said? Because that's the only way you can bring this stuff up and be intellectually consistent.

And what's worse, this is not the ESPN forums. We're supposed to be nerds here. The man can't be weird and still be right?

And if I'm a user of some software? Everything is nice and crossplatform, but the primary platform is Windows. They go C# 4.0 and either Linux does too or it gets left in the cold. I get left in the cold.

Er... how is that Mono's fault, or Ubuntu's fault for including Mono?

An application that depends on.NET features that are only available on Windows is not a cross-platform application, it's a Windows application. The existence of more Windows applications doesn't harm you.

Mono doesn't make your life any harder as a user. It makes your life easier, by giving developers who want to make cross-platform applications an easy way to do it (by sticking to the common features that Mono and.NET both support).

That's a ridiculous claim. I've seen Apple's source code for earlier versions of MacOS. It was written in Pascal. Windows was written in C. There's no way they could have used it. They could have based Windows on it, but then Windows would be substantially similar to MacOS at a low level... it's not. It's not even close. They both suck, but they suck in totally different ways.

I'm not a big fan of RMS. He's a bit of a nutter. But in this instance (ok, not exactly the first), he is absolutely correct. Inside every large horse that you see camped outside your walled city, lies an army waiting to kill you while you sleep. In this case, the horse has a large emblem written on the side that says "MONO", and inside is a patent minefield which wants to punch big holes in your city walls and bring ruin upon you. Microsoft teamed up with Miguel de Icaza to destroy Linux. de Icaza is no mere pawn. He is in league with microsoft. There is without a doubt, a paid connection between the two. Anything relating to mono should be an 'add on after', and not part of the native distribution. I have never expected microsoft to do the right thing, and they have never failed to disappoint. "MONO NOT WELCOME HERE" should be the official Debian line. Likewise with Novell. They did the dishonorable act, and now must be treated as the vermin they are. I don't want my system tainted with anything microsoft (I've seen, administered, installed and cursed their systems). I know exactly how bad microsoft software is. The only thing lower than the low low quality of their software is the moral compass of the company. Stay away from mono, and remove it from my Debian (and Ubuntu). Don't ever include it again, don't even consider that.

As for part one - yuk! You people in cold climates should wash more often and it won't happen.

Just FYI, I live in Washington State, and I don't have toe cheese, neither does anybody I know. The point that there's something *on* his foot to pull off in the first place is the opening act of the nasty; the part where he eats it is actually the encore performance.

I can understand that - he's "eating his own dogfood"

Eating dogfood would be substantially less disgusting.;) (Yes, I know the phrase.)

Exchange is definitely the worst email server in production on any platform

I hope you're making use of hyperbole and don't genuinely believe that. Exchange is certainly not the best, but it's nowhere even close to the worst. Hell, it's arguably better than its direct competitor-- Lotus Domino-- and that's all that really matters. (It certainly uses less bandwidth than Domino.)

The real genius of Exchange isn't the server; the server's an implementation detail and nobody really cares, except hard-core geeks. The real genius is the client software, which is quite simply excellent. To the end-user, the UI of an application *is* the application. (Thus: Outlook *is* Exchange, Lotus Notes *is* Domino.) I think if more open source developers realized that simple rule, open source could be vastly more popular.

(although full backups are actually possible now so it has improved) so the email portion is easily replaced on the same or lesser hardware, but it's a matter of finding out what other portions the users require since it does a lot of other stuff.

That "lot of other stuff" is the reason it's deployed.

I disagree with the attitude to the CLI - that is the one thing that has made large linux deployments possible since you can run the same command or script on as many machines as you want.

You could do this on an older Mac using AppleScript, for example, and never leaving the GUI. Unless you find some weird way of defining AppleScript as a "CLI" (which would be a huge stretch), you can do this particular without ever leaving the GUI.

Also note that Windows designed the Registry specifically to address your problem... again without requiring a CLI. You can deploy a registry entry to thousands of machines, and they'll do your bidding.

It might make large Linux deployments more pleasant, but that's only because Linux has no other technology designed for that purpose. It's definitely "possible" to do, other OSes have already done it.

The main offender newbies hit is X windows configuration but there are now a few decent graphical ways to sort that out and you ALWAYS need a text based way to configure video so you can do something about it when the video settings are wrong.

Yah, but all you need is a "Safe Mode" (to copy a term from Windows) that boots the GUI into a resolution that's guaranteed to work on every piece of video hardware. You don't need to be able to set every single parameter from a CLI, and your OS should protect you from picking un-display-able settings in the first place. And, needless-to-say, it shouldn't crash so often as to make this a consideration.

Consider something like "powerdesk" or the multi-page nvidia or ati GUIs for video settings on MS Windows and you'll see how incredibly hard it is to have a GUI for something that only has a fraction of the options that X windows has

Yeah, but those are shitty GUIs. And even those shitty GUIs are better than a config file-- for example, they're vastly more discoverable. I can guarantee you that if those companies hired a GUI designer and made them non-shitty, it wouldn't demonstrate your point.

I frequently see this: "the CLI is good because [program with shitty GUI] sucks." No real surprise there, saying that a shitty GUI sucks.

Personally I just copy the working nvidia dual head file to a new machine each time instead of the hunting through a maze of twisty config options that you would hav

This will get me modded down, but who cares I have karma. You want to know why "M$" comes off as a giant douche to me and just about everybody else? Lets be honest here folks, that is the "LOL Windblowz!" speak of the asshats you find on any forum, ala Twitter. You could have the best argument in the entire world against MSFT but when you use that "LOL Windblowz" style speech, of which M$ belongs, most folks instantly think douche and tune you out.

So I am not saying this for me, as i am more than capable of thinking douche and bypassing anyone whose post has the M$ crap. I am saying this for those that may have a legitimate point to make that don't know this is classic lamer speak, like you'd see the 14 year old Halo players using. So don't be a douche. Use MS, use MSFT hell use Msoft, whatever. But be aware that when you use that tired old M$ crap you have just cut a significant portion of those that would read your post out, because the first thing they think when they see that is douche and troll and move on.

Linux IMHO should not be incorporating Microsoft's standards in any form. Doing so could lead to litigation, and eventually the death of the system.

Ballmer would probably love to see Linux implementations of a few bits of Microsoft's stuff, purely so that he would have the grounds to sue someone later. Integrating such material is therefore very dangerous.

And for those eight years, twitter (the article submitter) has been a troll, operating dozens of sock-puppet accounts, with such a strong anti-MS bias that even most Linux-using FSF members find faintly embarrassing. I'm not sure what the relevance of twitter.com is to this article, but thanks for mentioning it...

Given that Stallman recommends using the GPL rather than the LGPL to force people to open source their code rather than make use of a good library, that doesn't make much sense.

It's fine to take a standard, make an open source implementation and then use it to run existing (generally proprietary if he had his way) apps in Linux (or GNU/Linux, or whatever), but writing open source apps that will run on that open source implementation is bad? What kind of logic is that?

Being a 25 year old software developer/coder, I agree with the "why Mono isn't bad" post. Most people's concerns could be worked around, and as long as you stick to the standardised stuff and treat it first and foremost as "an implementation of a language" rather than "a port of Microsoft's technologies" then you should be fine. I use Mono because it's flexible, powerful, easy to distribute, easy to work cross-platform, and I can concentrate on the important things (functionality and design rather than malloc() calls). The fact that my app will generally work in MS's.Net framework and not just the Mono one is a bonus.